Many of us have been taught that the health of our economic system is based on continuous growth. No news there, we hear it all the time. I suppose that at one time in our history, perhaps when there were very few of us around and our technology was very simple, this principle might have made sense. It certainly does not now.

In Southern Nevada, we are living with the impacts of growth every day. We can see it in the air, on our roads, in the steadily decreasing water supply in Lake Mead and the ever-increasing demand for energy. This is not a healthy condition.

With these symptoms all around us, it's obvious that our collective body is suffering the effects of unchecked growth. Yet, many say growth is needed to maintain a "healthy" economy. If unchecked growth were happening in a person's body, we'd call it cancer. Chances are they would consider themselves very ill and look for a way to return to a healthy, balanced state of well-being.

How do we reconcile this dual standard that says continuous growth is good for our community, while exactly the opposite is true for our own bodies?

We live in a finite world. It is impossible to have endless growth. By pretending otherwise, we are only fooling ourselves at our own peril. Our community, like the rest of the world, has experienced exponential growth in population, and we are clearly exceeding the capacity of our region to sustain us indefinitely.

Some say that technology is the key to solving the problem. Indeed, if it were not for technology, the vast majority of us could not even survive here. Certainly technology is necessary to help alleviate some of the growth-related problems we are facing. However, if in solving the current problems with bigger, more expensive technology, we manage to make way for more growth, we are expanding our dilemma, not solving it.

I recently attended a lecture by Dr. James Deacon, distinguished professor emeritus of environmental studies at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada. The topic was Groundwater for Growth in Las Vegas: Cost, Conservation, Challenge.

Deacon's lecture was based on science, undeniable logic and ample respect for the earth's natural systems that sustain us. It was like a breath of fresh, clean intelligence.

Much of his presentation focused on the effects of the proposed system to remove water from rural communities in Northern Nevada for use in cities in Southern Nevada.

According to Deacon, over the last 120,000 years, the water table in our area has only varied approximately 30 feet, even through several glacial events. Under the proposed system, the pumping of ground water could draw down the water table by 50 to 100 feet in an area stretching from California to Utah and north to Baker, Nev., and as deep as 1,600 feet in certain locations.

This would result in a significant and permanent loss in biodiversity for our region, not to mention the impact on rural Nevadans.

Another key point made by Deacon is that ground water in Nevada is often over-allocated at rates between 200 percent and 600 percent of the actual sustainable yield. That means that there is much more demand than there is supply. What are we asking of our ecosystems? If we take more water from more areas to support more growth, are we acting in our own best interests? And how long will it last?

Deacon's presentation was very detailed, but the overall message was simple: We live in a desert and we must face the facts. Constant growth is not sustainable.

As with many green living concepts, there are interrelationships that can create positive results when applied thoughtfully.

Let's suppose we decide to honor the rights of our neighbors to the north by changing our strategy. We have the technology to improve efficiency in many ways, with water as well as energy. Suppose one of our goals would be to accept the inevitable limits of the universe and responsibly limit growth by creating a steady-state economy.

If we can avoid the pipeline, we won't need huge amounts of energy to pump the water. That could help us avoid new coal plants, saving even more water, while reducing greenhouse gasses and helping the climate-change issue. We begin the process of living within our means. We develop a true community, unique and interdependent that respects the natural wonders surrounding us.

If we're considering spending $2 billion to $15 billion for a water system that is damaging and ultimately unsustainable, why not shift that financial commitment to sustainable improvements? It's time for Southern Nevadans to focus on long-term solutions for life, not short-term profits and growth.

Steve Rypka is a green living consultant and president of GreenDream Enterprises, specializing in renewable energy, green building, alternative transportation and lifestyle choices for both residential and commercial clients. The company is committed to helping people live lighter on the planet. Rypka can be reached via email at steve@greendream.biz or at >www.greendream.bi